Eternal Recurrence and Humpty Dumpty

A circle is an inadequate representation of Eternal Recurrence, because it implies a one-dimensional sequence of events. Some of Nietzsche's descriptions suggest, instead, a kaleidoscope metaphor--a manifold that is finite, and, therefore, is subject to only a cycle of finite re-arrangements. However, unrepresentable by such a pattern is any original 'dismemberment' of Dionysus, that would produce the manifold out of Dionysian unity. Similarly unaccommodated is the process of composing fragments "into one" that Nietzsche attributes to Willing Backwards. In contrast, an image that can represent both disintegration and re-integration is Humpty Dumpty, on the basis of which, the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence is more than one event in a cycle--it is a moment of cosmic synthesis. A variety of passages, especially those in which Nietzsche exults about the monumentality of his accomplishment, testify to the exceptionality for him of such a moment. That Dionysus undergoes a cycle of disintegration and re-integration clarifies some difficult aspects of Nietzsche's project. For example, it diametrically contrasts the suffering of the disintegrating Dionysus from that of individuals, which is due to their selfish resistance to a re-integration with the whole, that they experience as 'destructive' and 'cruel', but which is justified from the perspective of the whole. And, it explains how Zarathustra can endure affirming all past events--they are all fragments of Dionysus, and, hence, are all fundamentally divine. Now, that re-integration is a product of Willing Backwards indicates that the synthesis is actively accomplished, i. e. that the Recurrence of cosmic unity can only occur as the product of an affirmation, and not haphazardly. But, if so, then the beginning of a new cycle must also be deliberate--a self-disintegration of Dionysus, Humpty being pushed off the wall, etc. That Nietzsche does not characterize his post-Zarathustra efforts as willed dis-integration does not necessarily refute the Humpty Dumpty hypothesis. Rather, it may only underscore the lack in his System of an active Principle of Individuation, one entailed by e. g. Derrida's Differance and Dissemination, Deleuze's Difference, or, from here, the Material Principle of Formaterialism.